I agree with James that the welfare state isn't inherently socialist. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I, a tech bro, can argue for a generous welfare state from a tech bro's perspective.
If you want to maximize innovation, dynamism, and risk-taking in the economy, it would be both good and efficient for the government to absorb a lot of the tail risk. The government can guarantee people some level of basic food, water, shelter, and health care, which would free them up to do what they do best. Sort of like "basic needs as a service."
These services also have to be high enough in quality that depending on them isn't seen as unacceptable. For that reason, it would help if they were universal and broadly used rather than strictly means-tested.
I mostly agree with you, but I also think that you're not really describing Medlock-ism. You're describing welfare as a means to an end - a way to maximize innovation, to get more dynamism and growth in the economy, to ensure that each person has a chance to acquire human capital and contribute to society as much as they can. I agree with this assessment - it's why the welfare state is important!
Medlock, on the other hand says:
"I think there's a good case to be made for top marginal rates on the right hand slope of the laffer curve, as a way of compressing the income distribution...I'd like to see public spending increase by 10-15% of GDP."
While Medlock is a very informed guy, I think these quotes demonstrate how he sees (and I don't think he'd disagree with this assessment!) welfare as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. For Medlock, the social programs are the end goal - whereas for you and I, they're just stepping stones to the other things.
Yeah, that bit about top marginal tax rates being "on the right hand slope of the laffer curve, as a way of compressing the income distribution" is something I would strongly disagree with.
To your point, I think Medlock wants to optimize for a more egalitarian society even if that means total output is lower. I disagree with that because I think that wealthier societies create a bunch of technology that you can't buy at any price in a less advanced society, especially over the long run.
With that said, the fact that people with different aims can agree on concrete policy proposals bodes is heartening.
Right. The (typically libertarian) tech bro definition of "freedom" is cramped and constrained. Living in a polity where the basics necessary for a productive life (education, healthcare, shelter, sustenance, transportation) are largely guaranteed uh, *enhances* freedom. Right?
The most radical aspect of Medlock Thought is tax positivity. It sounds like pure lunacy as someone who remembers the '80s and '90s. Even liberals just believed that the IRS was trying to screw you and that government wasted taxpayer dollars.
It's was such a breath of fresh air to hear a rational economic case that it's ok to not feel guilty about having a welfare state.
It's a little scary how much Medlock's views are in sync with my own, based on this interview. Pretty much a carbon copy. The main exception being: I don't use "socialist" as a self-descriptive. To me that implies large-scale state ownership of the means of production, which is something I oppose.
The "higher taxes are good" thing is interesting, but the fastest and most effective way to raise people's real spending power right now is likely with land-use reform and liberalization: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388.
Land-use liberalization is the low-hanging fruit. Get to it, and then discuss the rest of the issues; so much effective value is locked up by land restrictions. And those restrictions affect almost everything else, including Medlock's desire to lower poverty: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Very inspirational on many levels including what you can learn if you learn for the purpose of arguing instead of maintaining ideological good standing with the assumption always in the background that everything you know is wrong.
Oh, the NEXT crisis. Not the one Yellen is going to provoke by saying something naughty? :)
OK. I'll stop trying to be cute and just say what I think.
I do not think a run on the dollar is possible. Even if people substantially raised their inflation expectations (presently very firmly anchored at or slightly below the Fed's target rate) and people started trying to buy assets (beef or bitcoin) they could not do it in the aggregate w/o the Fed's cooperation.
I agree with James that the welfare state isn't inherently socialist. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I, a tech bro, can argue for a generous welfare state from a tech bro's perspective.
If you want to maximize innovation, dynamism, and risk-taking in the economy, it would be both good and efficient for the government to absorb a lot of the tail risk. The government can guarantee people some level of basic food, water, shelter, and health care, which would free them up to do what they do best. Sort of like "basic needs as a service."
These services also have to be high enough in quality that depending on them isn't seen as unacceptable. For that reason, it would help if they were universal and broadly used rather than strictly means-tested.
I mostly agree with you, but I also think that you're not really describing Medlock-ism. You're describing welfare as a means to an end - a way to maximize innovation, to get more dynamism and growth in the economy, to ensure that each person has a chance to acquire human capital and contribute to society as much as they can. I agree with this assessment - it's why the welfare state is important!
Medlock, on the other hand says:
"I think there's a good case to be made for top marginal rates on the right hand slope of the laffer curve, as a way of compressing the income distribution...I'd like to see public spending increase by 10-15% of GDP."
While Medlock is a very informed guy, I think these quotes demonstrate how he sees (and I don't think he'd disagree with this assessment!) welfare as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. For Medlock, the social programs are the end goal - whereas for you and I, they're just stepping stones to the other things.
Yeah, that bit about top marginal tax rates being "on the right hand slope of the laffer curve, as a way of compressing the income distribution" is something I would strongly disagree with.
To your point, I think Medlock wants to optimize for a more egalitarian society even if that means total output is lower. I disagree with that because I think that wealthier societies create a bunch of technology that you can't buy at any price in a less advanced society, especially over the long run.
With that said, the fact that people with different aims can agree on concrete policy proposals bodes is heartening.
Right. The (typically libertarian) tech bro definition of "freedom" is cramped and constrained. Living in a polity where the basics necessary for a productive life (education, healthcare, shelter, sustenance, transportation) are largely guaranteed uh, *enhances* freedom. Right?
That's right.
The most radical aspect of Medlock Thought is tax positivity. It sounds like pure lunacy as someone who remembers the '80s and '90s. Even liberals just believed that the IRS was trying to screw you and that government wasted taxpayer dollars.
It's was such a breath of fresh air to hear a rational economic case that it's ok to not feel guilty about having a welfare state.
It's a little scary how much Medlock's views are in sync with my own, based on this interview. Pretty much a carbon copy. The main exception being: I don't use "socialist" as a self-descriptive. To me that implies large-scale state ownership of the means of production, which is something I oppose.
The "higher taxes are good" thing is interesting, but the fastest and most effective way to raise people's real spending power right now is likely with land-use reform and liberalization: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388.
Land-use liberalization is the low-hanging fruit. Get to it, and then discuss the rest of the issues; so much effective value is locked up by land restrictions. And those restrictions affect almost everything else, including Medlock's desire to lower poverty: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
>Land-use liberalization is the low-hanging fruit.<
Agreed. This would be a game-changer. I'd like to see a Nordic-ized tax/transfer system in the United States AND radical land-use deregulation.
Very inspirational on many levels including what you can learn if you learn for the purpose of arguing instead of maintaining ideological good standing with the assumption always in the background that everything you know is wrong.
If you were a dollar, where would you run to? :)
I meant if you were a typical dollar of the trillions outstanding.
Oh, the NEXT crisis. Not the one Yellen is going to provoke by saying something naughty? :)
OK. I'll stop trying to be cute and just say what I think.
I do not think a run on the dollar is possible. Even if people substantially raised their inflation expectations (presently very firmly anchored at or slightly below the Fed's target rate) and people started trying to buy assets (beef or bitcoin) they could not do it in the aggregate w/o the Fed's cooperation.